Page 60 - All files for Planning Inspectorate update

the foot This design principle is not mentioned in your report nor by Ms Blomfield. I wonder why? It is
central to the overdevelopment.

It is astounding that the developer and MSDC, having blatantly disregarded the consultation obligations
(with AWVC and residents) with the original application, should do the same with this. I stick to my view
that the intention is to bludgeon through the application, at all costs based on an incorrect or unlawful
neighbourhood plan with no local OAN or market survey.

I also contend that AWNP was of date from the moment it was printed because at the time MSDC
could not demonstrate a 5 year land supply. In any case, the potential c apacity of units on the
WH:EDF site is neither binding nor can it be sustained by any planning policy. The number arises from an
arithmetical error. Yet you continue to work on the basis that the is the starting point. You admit
that the AWNP was examined in detail and Mr Dorman, Urban Planner states that the
overdevelopment could only be justified by reliance on the AWNP. His comments on overdevelopment do
not appear anywhere in your report nor Ms Blomfield letter.

MSDC refusal let ter and your delegated report do not mention the density per hectare figures (NOT
ONCE). The precise figures expose how gross the overdevelopment would be. It is a serious violation of
.
policies as you cannot fail to realise. Yet you continue to press ahead

I remind you of the wonderfully flossy MSDC publication we involve you in planning decisions and
the NPPF (2018) which states:

128. Design quality should be considered throughout the evolution and assessment of individual
proposals. Early discuss ion between applicants, the local planning authority and local community about
the design and style of emerging schemes is important for clarifying expectations and reconciling local
and commercial interests. Applicants should work closely with those affec ted by their proposals to evolve
designs that take account of the views of the community. Applications that demonstrate early, proactive
and effective engagement with the community should be looked on more favourably than those that
cannot.

You and the developer have been arrogant and unwilling to engage with residents.

I note your position that the duty planning officer cannot into discussions (with me) about the merits
of individual planning applications. As such they would not be able to enter into discussions about the
th
matters that you have raised in your email of 24 March 2019 attach a copy of my email. Some items in
I
it were of a general nature and were to avoid further FOI requests. I assume that you are not prepared to
allow anyone in MSDC discuss even general points. Incredible! AWVC is similarly obdurate.

I remain convinced that the WH developments will end in a disaster, litigation, action for misfeasance in
public office or a Judicial Review. We should all try to avoid this, but MSDC behaviour has been
appalling. You have leant over backwards to support and lure the applicant, with repeated meetings,
correspondence, telephone calls and advice (NOT ON THE PORTAL or minuted) to engineer a
scheme that rs can support while, at the same time, keeping your doors, eyes and ears closed to
residents and common sense. Mr Dorman alleged of a revised scheme (for DM/18) is ultra -vires
but may influence the Planning Inspectorate if all of the opposing letters are not passed to him or her.

So much for fairness, section 128 of the NPPF and preserving the unique characteristics of the village. There
are around 15 questions in my earlier submissions; you have not responded to any of them. And you still
refuse to consider the integrated scheme involving the WH: LIC site which, at least, must be a material
consideration in applications for the WH:EDF site.

Yours faithfully,

Michael Comer

2